The fact that the iPhone is a locked-down device, and that you don't really own it so much as rent it from Apple is well-known by now. The supposed reason for this lock-down is to ensure the device's stability and security - in fact, this has already become conventional wisdom. However, where is the proof that supports this statement? Is there any real-world evidence that suggests this model is better?

Well he at one point said he would never buy another Apple product, reading this maybe he should have stuck with that decision.

But honestly if the Ipad had a Pixel Qi screen for reading and multitasking I might have bought one although I hate all the totalitarian shit Apple stands for.

I think security is not just one thing, an app store where programs really analysed and not only tested for a short time like Apple does might help, but it is only one thing. Crowdsourcing reviews and comments help, open sourcing helps even more.
A good security and privacy framework like Android has where you have to allow apps to access the web or your addressbook etc helps a lot.

I am not worried, the press might be full of Apple-using/loving editors, but in the long run more open system always win.

Who cares about the app store. I want to download apps and install them from the internet, just like i do with pretty much any other device. I also want to publish apps and utilities and rolling updates without waiting for the long approval process. Because of this, i really hope android phones end up overtaking the iphone.

Android does have a central listing just like the app store is. The difference is that Google does not lock you into only there repository source. One can add third party repositories and download software from them instead.

Maemo Linux has been doing this since it started; a few official Nokia repositories with the ability to add additional repositories. When talking to a Nokia rep, one doesn't even need to hide the fact that they may have the Debfarm repository setup on there device. The device owner simply gets a "This is not official Nokia software and Nokia has no responsibility for any damages it may cause. Do you with to continue?"

So, an official software marketing website and related repositories is fantastic. It's the imposed lock-in to only that software source that is the problem.

Unfortunately this makes it very hard to find apps. You'll end up on multiple aggregation sites to sell your apps.

Being able to download and install applications not listed in the app store doesn't negate the possibility of having an app store also, ie. you can have both. Not all developers wish to take money for their applications, and not every application would even be accepted into Apple's app store. As such, he's just saying he'd wish that you didn't have to jailbreak iPhone to be able to install apps downloaded from somewhere else than the Apple App Store.

ATM this is about two days for an update. Plus, you get updates pushed to your users for free rather than having to convince them to re-download or rolling your own updater.

Does the user have a say what updates he gets? It may be free for you, but the user may be paying a lot for the trafic your update generates.

A two day wait for an update and a 30% cut is a small price to pay. I'd rather put up with this than have nothing at all.

An immediate update and 30% cut for Android Market.
Next to that, I don't want to develop software for a platform where the platform vendor demands that you cough up 99 USD per year to run your application on any iPhone, even your own(ie. no debugging on the actual device). And if you're not a resident of US, you have to FAX YOUR CC DETAILS EVERY YEAR!!!!

And if I want to develop a free application? It still costs me $99(at least). For some people in the poorer countries that's just too much. iPod Touch'es are already pretty cheap.

The trouble is, most end users cannot be trusted to search the internet and find legitimate applications by themselves...
They will fall for various scams, perfectly legitimate looking websites which serve up malware that the users then download and run.
Like it or not, the locked down app store is actually better for the masses, at the expense of the competent minority.

The trouble is, most end users cannot be trusted to search the internet and find legitimate applications by themselves...
They will fall for various scams, perfectly legitimate looking websites which serve up malware that the users then download and run

Oh, the arrogance.

If something as simple and straightforward as downloading an application can result in computers getting broken, then your computer is badly designed. Imagine if a car would stop working because you take left turns!

Downloading an application off the internet is a completely normal practice for a computer. It is one of the many tasks that fall perfectly within the scope of what a computer is supposed to be for. As such, this act may not break it - if it does, then it's not the user's fault for not understanding - it's the system's fault for not preventing or mitigating.

Then again, your comment shows you did not read the article. Any user can install Mac OS X applications at will, or download stuff off the internet. Same for Linux. Yet, the system is still stable and secure.

"The trouble is, most end users cannot be trusted to search the internet and find legitimate applications by themselves...
They will fall for various scams, perfectly legitimate looking websites which serve up malware that the users then download and run

Oh, the arrogance.

If something as simple and straightforward as downloading an application can result in computers getting broken, then your computer is badly designed. Imagine if a car would stop working because you take left turns!

Downloading an application off the internet is a completely normal practice for a computer. It is one of the many tasks that fall perfectly within the scope of what a computer is supposed to be for. As such, this act may not break it - if it does, then it's not the user's fault for not understanding - it's the system's fault for not preventing or mitigating.

Then again, your comment shows you did not read the article. Any user can install Mac OS X applications at will, or download stuff off the internet. Same for Linux. Yet, the system is still stable and secure. "

What??? No, he's spot on. If I download application XYZ that has some trojan in it then I have most likely just hosed my machine no matter if i'm running OS X or Linux, BSD or Windows. Even running as a non-root user there are probably plenty of local root / admin escalations to get around this and still eat your box. However, most users are easily duped to either running as administrator, sudo'ing or running directly as root.

The problem is regular joe users are easily duped into downloading stuff that isn't "valid", but looks perfectly legit.

The problem is regular joe users are easily duped into downloading stuff that isn't "valid", but looks perfectly legit.

That is where certificates come in. But don't be fooled, Apple gives out certificates left and right. And since blackra1n, jailbreaking your phone has not been easier or faster. I imagine, that there are already people that are writing heterogeneous viruses/trojans. A virus/trojan does not infect the PC, but sits idle and waits till you connect your iPhone for syncing, and then uploads it's payload onto the device. Voila!

If something as simple and straightforward as downloading an application can result in computers getting broken, then your computer is badly designed. Imagine if a car would stop working because you take left turns!

Well, downloading apps isn't a big deal, but it's running them that gets people in trouble If you think that any OS is secure enough to protect users from badly written apps, if I wrote an app myself and handed you the binary, would you blindly run it on said OS without knowing what it does?

If there was such an OS out there that could protect users for badly written apps, it would be completely locked down, which is basically how the iPhone operates anyway.

Then again, your comment shows you did not read the article. Any user can install Mac OS X applications at will, or download stuff off the internet. Same for Linux. Yet, the system is still stable and secure.

Really? Linux doesn't really count, since each distro has their own 'app store' that, while not manditory to use, is where most (if not all) users get their apps.

I rest my case. I realize that the infection rate among Mac users is basically nil, but it's not like the OS is preventing that from happening.

BTW: I understand what it is that Apple is trying to do, but I fall into the crowd of people who think they should provide a way to jailbreak the phones, but make it just hard enough to do so that only geeks would ever attempt it. That way, 'normal' users are protected from themselves, and geeks are happy; everybody wins.

BTW: I understand what it is that Apple is trying to do, but I fall into the crowd of people who think they should provide a way to jailbreak the phones, but make it just hard enough to do so that only geeks would ever attempt it. That way, 'normal' users are protected from themselves, and geeks are happy; everybody wins.

"BTW: I understand what it is that Apple is trying to do, but I fall into the crowd of people who think they should provide a way to jailbreak the phones, but make it just hard enough to do so that only geeks would ever attempt it. That way, 'normal' users are protected from themselves, and geeks are happy; everybody wins.

Bingo. "

They have. Have you ever Jailbroken an iPhone? Only a total geek would attempt to do it. lol. Yeah, Apple don't sanction it - but they also have done little so far to thwart the attempts. Not really.

Exactly Thom. But it is still possible and Apple don't do anything to your device if you do (like blocking App store access, requiring iPhone OS updates to continue using Apple services or stopping iTunes sync.) They don't sanction Jailbreaking, but they could be doing a *lot* more to stop it. The only real reason it breaks with each OS release is that the underlying code base changes. I suspect that is about to change, but currently they aren't going out of their way to stop Jailbreaking. Not really.

This need to protect device owners from themselves gets to me at times. "users can't be trusted to find applications".. no.. "owners" may not be able to find trustworthy applications but it's there device. If it wasn't, Apple should be handing out Iphones free and deriving all profit from service contracts.

Instead, we have this madness where a person purchases a device and is then told they don't actually own there legally optained hard goods.

This need to protect device owners from themselves gets to me at times. "users can't be trusted to find applications".. no.. "owners" may not be able to find trustworthy applications but it's there device. If it wasn't, Apple should be handing out Iphones free and deriving all profit from service contracts.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the OP (I much prefer the freedom to install apps from any location), but there is a distinct difference from a smartphone versus a PC. Besides a flat-rate cost to get onto the Internet, you don't have any additional costs, or at least costs that you don't explicitly agree to and enter a credit card number. A smartphone on the other hand, can entail additional costs simply from use.

- You get malware on a PC that visits a porn site regularly, and you don't pay anything. Sure the site may get improved advertising revenue from extra hits, but you're not left with any bill for it.

- You get malware on a phone that dials a 900 number or sends SMS messages constantly, and you're left with a huge phone bill.

The landscape is different between the two due to the open-access nature of the Internet-connected PC and the explicit agreement between two parties for billing. Phones are a different matter entirely.

The N900 is a smartphone yet completely open to the consumer. Do the quick red-pill/blue-pill dance or add secondary repositories and your off. Nokia encourages third party software and exploration of what the device can do beyond there engineering plan. It also functions at no additional cost beyond the hardware if one chooses not to attach it to a network.

I'm not sure how the Android phones are. Nexus seems to be the only other smartphone device with a direct from vendor sales method. I'm guessing it can be used as a wifi only device but as it's not available in my area, I can't fake my way through the order form to see everything previous to the final billing information page.

Malware is also not unique to phones either. Visit a hostile website or leave your bluetooth open for anyone to connect and your hosed. bluetooth dialing 900 numbers has happening long before smartphones hit the market or the Iphone lockdown model went to production. Neither of these risks justify not providing a sanctioned jailbreak hidden option for advanced device owners.

Malware is also not unique to phones either. Visit a hostile website or leave your bluetooth open for anyone to connect and your hosed. bluetooth dialing 900 numbers has happening long before smartphones hit the market or the Iphone lockdown model went to production.

It's pretty simple stuff. Setup a 900 number with outrageous rates. Scan for listening bluetooth out on the sidewalks. Send AT900####### and collect your 900 money from the phone company based on what mobile phones accept the at command.

I've also heard discussion about hijacking cellphones in thelasthope.org talks though I believe the clip the speakers users is actually audio from The Real Hustle (definitely some similar British show).

I'm thinking it's the "how do I pwn thee" talk.

As for specific examples of Bluetooth hijacking the Jphone, you'll have to do your own research if the request is more than a reactionary need to defend your purchasing choices.

You just wrote yet another article about an iThing. You have been Appleized already. Resisting is futile. You will think Apple, Apple owns you. You shall buy every iThing that Apple releases and you shall ignore anything that Apple does not release.

The advantages of an App store (for me at least) is that there is one place to go and get the app I want. I don't have to search too hard to find it. I used to use VersionTracker for the same reason. Not all apps were there, but plenty were (still are :-)...

Another advantage is that the Apps on the store have been tested and most likely are safe.

I think the App store is probably too policed and some of the apps that aren't approved have me scratching my head...

I like the idea of a one stop shop, but I also think that it needs a lot of work to get it "right".

I would love an App Store for the Mac and Windows and Linux too so if I need to find something, I can (yes, I know there are places to find a lot of stuff, but with the App store you know it's 100% everything). Again, if there are sites like this, let me know, I'd love to book mark them (I have VersionTracker already). Ubuntu does have a nice place in the OS to get a lot of software very easily, but is it everything?

What I really don't like is that for anyone to code something with XCode and pop it onto their iPhone (just for them), it will cost you US$99/yr. I have paid the money, so I can quickly code stuff and pop it on my iPhone, but it should be free... I mean, for the $99 I can publish to the App Store which is nice, but for personal use, it should be free... As far as I know, you get access to the iPhone simulator for free, but that's all, if I'm wrong on this last point, let me know :-)

Linux distributions call there "app store" repositories and your add/remove GUI utility will give you the full listing and searchable descriptions.

Devices like Android and Maemo also provide this repository distribution model with there local searchable add/remove utilities or a related website for more detailed listings.

Windows Update would greatly benefit the end user if MS allowed non-MS software to be listed for download. This would mean listing programs that compete wit there own offerings though so it's unlikely to happen. It benefits the end user more than the share holder.

Apple providing an app store for desktop osX would be similar to Microsoft in that they'd need to open up a little rather than push the current app store dictatorship they have going. Things like banning an app because it competes with existing Apple products or because it mentions a non-Apple brand name within relevant context are what kill it's potential dead.

Thanks for the info. I am becoming a bit of a fan of Linux, esp. distros like Ubuntu. I guess I am still learning the ropes as to where things are and so on... I prefer to install Linux on my older PC hardware than a copy of XP, seems to be a much nicer OS than older versions of Windows. Actually, I prefer it to Windows 7 too, but then, maybe I didn't give 7 a big enough try.

I agree that the App Store isn't where it should be. The idea is great, but the way Apple seems to "police" it seems to need a bit more polishing around the edges ;-) I guess with pressure from other "stores" and the presence of phones like Android and so on, things will only improve...

I love competition from all sides, when Apple introduces the iPad for instance, it will mean the rest of the industry will give us much better tablets (some would argue they already have) than they perhaps would have (and cheaper). When the rest of the industry makes better tablets, Apple will improve the iPad as well (and so on)...

The advantages of an App store (for me at least) is that there is one place to go and get the app I want. I don't have to search too hard to find it. I used to use VersionTracker for the same reason. Not all apps were there, but plenty were (still are :-)...

Another advantage is that the Apps on the store have been tested and most likely are safe.

I think the App store is probably too policed and some of the apps that aren't approved have me scratching my head...

I like the idea of a one stop shop, but I also think that it needs a lot of work to get it "right".

I would love an App Store for the Mac and Windows and Linux too so if I need to find something, I can (yes, I know there are places to find a lot of stuff, but with the App store you know it's 100% everything). Again, if there are sites like this, let me know, I'd love to book mark them (I have VersionTracker already). Ubuntu does have a nice place in the OS to get a lot of software very easily, but is it everything?

What I really don't like is that for anyone to code something with XCode and pop it onto their iPhone (just for them), it will cost you US$99/yr. I have paid the money, so I can quickly code stuff and pop it on my iPhone, but it should be free... I mean, for the $99 I can publish to the App Store which is nice, but for personal use, it should be free... As far as I know, you get access to the iPhone simulator for free, but that's all, if I'm wrong on this last point, let me know :-)

You can use dashcode and just bookmark your apps... They will continue to run offline and sync up any updates when you make them.

Symbian is hardly a "lucrative potential market for malicious crackers" when nobody but a couple of geeks install anything on those.

You mention it yourself, so I do not get part of your argument:

First you mention that "it is by far not unreasonable to assume that iPhone owners install and use more applications", than Symbian that is?. And then you compare it with how little malware is available for Mac OS X, vs Windows I would assume?

Windows users are as prone to install stuff as Mac OS X users, that is why their market share matters (over Mac OS X's). Symbian users do not even know they can install stuff (and even if they knew, not that there is much decent stuff to install).

Do not get me wrong, I like the comfortability of the App Store, and yet would like to have the option not to use it to install certain things.

Eh, you do realise that that link actually solidifies my point, right? Because, uhm, despite the review process, the application GOT THROUGH IT. It was only removed AFTERWARDS. When the damage had been done.

You made reference to the fact that OS X is secure, blah blah blah, but they don't ban users from using 3rd party apps. You are 100% right. But look at the case of Adobe Flash. For years we have known that Flash on OS X has sucked, and pundits have blamed OS X, calling it Apple's fault. iPhone launches without supporting Flash and it's Apple's fault and the phone's limitation. Adobe finally comes out and admits that they weren't taking advantage of Core animation or whatever hooks in OS X ensure stability, etc for Flash.

So for all these years Apple takes it on the chin for a 3rd party vendors problem. Imagine this same issue taking place on Apple's new breakout device? With literally thousands of developers all rushing to do one thing only, make money. Not frankly giving a damn about the app working as designed just getting it out. If Apple wasnt acting as gatekeeper, I can only imagine the level of tomfoolery that would take place and of course the apps wouldnt get blamed, just as in the Flash case, Apple and the iPhone would.

For years we have known that Flash on OS X has sucked, and pundits have blamed OS X, calling it Apple's fault.

I have never heard anyone blame Mac OS X for the fact that Flash sucks on OS X, or any platform for that matter. where do you get this nonsense from?

If Apple wasnt acting as gatekeeper, I can only imagine the level of tomfoolery that would take place and of course the apps wouldnt get blamed, just as in the Flash case, Apple and the iPhone would.

*sigh* Since when is the world black and white?

Nobody is arguing that Apple should not have an App Store at all. Nobody is saying that it should just become an uncontrolled free-for-all. All Apple needs to do is include a nice little warranty-voiding switch that enables side-loading. On top of that, they should stop criminalising people who jailbreak. That's all.

As a sidenote: the snarky thing here is that today, Apple itself assumes no responsibility for damage caused by third party iPhone apps. If a third party app store app breaks your phone, you can't knock on Apple's door - App Store or no. So despite Apple clamouring the greatness of the App Store - you're just as boned there if a third party app breaks your phone as you would be on any other platform.

Personally i would advocate devices that are locked by default, but can be legitimately unlocked/jailbroken...
The average end user has no idea about security or responsible network use, and is actually much better off with a locked down platform controlled by someone who does have an idea. The Internet as a whole would be a lot less messy and screwed up were this the case. The majority of people don't need general purpose computers with the ability to run arbitrary programs.

But in protecting clueless users from themselves, do not stifle those people who are clued up enough to use a complex device properly.

I think something like Ubuntu makes a good compromise, users are encouraged to install apps from the supplied repositories but advanced users are still able to make changes to the system if they want to and know how. The average end user should never need to install anything from outside of the package repository, and should consult someone appropriately qualified before trying to do so.

Some people are astroturfers, others corporate fanboys/girls, and some are just contrarians. You'll always have these sorts lurking around any discussion like this, whether it's Apple or anyone else trying to be draconian.

Sure you can search the internet for programs. But Google search and Bing and the rest are still, at best, mediocre at finding what I'm looking for. I can be as specific as I want, but whoever pays Google, etc., their stuff gets put at the top and then there usually is a whole bunch of **** in there. You have to search within the search to find what you want.

You still have to do that with Apple's app store but at least you know that the only things in there are for that particular product, in this case the iPhone or iTouch. Things in the iPad store, as well as the coming iBookStore, will be available only for devices that can use those programs/books/etc.

Also, if there does turn out to be a bad app, Apple can pull it and it will get pulled off your device.

That can be both good at bad. The question is WHY they pull an app. If it is because there is something bad happening in the background, like stealing information, then it is good that it is being pulled. If there is a territory thing going on (Apple has an app for that) then that sucks.

As for app stores for Android phones, good luck on finding the right app for your right device. Which hardware do you have? Does this version run on your android hardware? Do you have to pay first to find out? What if it doesn't work, how do you get your money back?

Apple's app store isn't perfect. Hey, if you gave everyone $1,000 in cash 99% would find some reason to complain. Yes you would. Why not $2,000, etc.

Things can always improve or get worse. Life happens. Enjoy what you can and stop fixating on what you can't.

Sure you can search the internet for programs. But Google search and Bing and the rest are still, at best, mediocre at finding what I'm looking for. I can be as specific as I want, but whoever pays Google, etc., their stuff gets put at the top and then there usually is a whole bunch of **** in there. You have to search within the search to find what you want.

I'll just point you to a few comments up where this has already been touched upon.

First, I'm not saying that I'd like my computers to be locked down like the iPhone.
But still I don't think that Thom's argument that Mac OS X and Linux are just as secure and stable as the iPhone OS is correct.

I often help other people who have problems with their computers, e.g. who suddenly have problems getting onto the internet (community service). These are people who are themselves no computer experts and who don't have close friends or relatives nearby that are computer experts.

Almost everytime when I start their computers (usually Windows, sometimes Mac OS X), I immediately recognize the difference to my own computer. In Windows, the system tray is usually full of superfluous utilities that all use some memory and the user often doesn't even know what those utilities do. Several movie players -- all with their own internet plugin -- are installed. Internet Explorer has so many more or less useless toolbars installed that there's hardly any space left for the web pages.

I think most of you would agree that just by playing 3 minutes with a computer you could tell if the computer belongs to someone who is versed in computers (or who routinely has help from someone who is) or not.

With the iPhone, it's different. Because the iPhone is so locked down, there's not much experts could possibly do different than "normal" people.

And I think that's a KEY difference. If you define "secure and stable" in such a way that you say: well, as long as all those toolbars, useless utilities etc. are no malware and do not crash, then everything is obviously still secure and stable, Mac OS X, Linux and Windows are indeed as stable as the iPhone OS. But if you define "secure and stable" as "prevents people who are no computer experts from configuring the computer in a way that makes it slower and more cluttered", then the iPhone OS is certainly more secure and stable. It's definitely an advantage, but of course it comes with the disadvantage that experts cannot adjust and optimize their workflow much even though they would be able to if the system wasn't locked down.

A last example: everytime I visit my father (once or twice a year), I clean up his Mac. However, I never change anything on his iPod touch even though he uses it a lot. I mean, the only thing I could do with his iPod is installing interesting apps, but that's nothing I need to do personally. I can just recommend the apps to him on the phone and he can install them just as well as I could do it myself.

A last example: everytime I visit my father (once or twice a year), I clean up his Mac. However, I never change anything on his iPod touch even though he uses it a lot. I mean, the only thing I could do with his iPod is installing interesting apps, but that's nothing I need to do personally. I can just recommend the apps to him on the phone and he can install them just as well as I could do it myself.

Almost everytime when I start their computers (usually Windows, sometimes Mac OS X), I immediately recognize the difference to my own computer.

In Windows, the system tray is usually full of superfluous utilities that all use some memory and the user often doesn't even know what those utilities do. Several movie players -- all with their own internet plugin -- are installed.

LOL let me add my own:
Shortcuts to shortcuts.
Dead shortcuts.
Multiple copies of media files in random locations.
Archive install files that have been extracted to the desktop.
A dozen shortcuts on the desktop, the same dozen in the start menu and half in the quick launch.
Multiple versions of the same program installed, often MS Office.
A file on the desktop called passwords.doc.

I once had a neighbor that insisted upon downloading crapware like weatherbug. He would also download movie players and God knows what he downloaded when trying to get porn. I didn't even know a user could foul up a computer that quickly. It was incredible. Half the time he didn't even ask me for help, I would just get on his computer when visiting him. It sometimes felt like he and the malware were comfortable with the situation and I was just needlessly making life difficult for the malware.

I tried teaching him safe computing habits which helped but he still couldn't resist installing toolbars and widgets until his computer would come to a grinding halt thanks to the 20 or 30 applications running in the background. I eventually moved and now I only support direct relatives, and that's only if I happen to be visiting them.

A last example: everytime I visit my father (once or twice a year), I clean up his Mac. However, I never change anything on his iPod touch even though he uses it a lot. I mean, the only thing I could do with his iPod is installing interesting apps, but that's nothing I need to do personally. I can just recommend the apps to him on the phone and he can install them just as well as I could do it myself.

Isn't that the point? Working on my dad's computer is the _last_ thing I want to be doing when I visit.

"Our children will live to see that perfect world, in which there is no war, oppression, famine, or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common purpose, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized."

Here is the funny thing, if someone did that to a general purpose machine, I would totally agree with Thom, but on a device, I really don't care. I have yet to spend more then about 3 minutes and 5 dollars finding, buying, and installing iPhone apps that do exactly what I want them to.

If I were an iPhone dev, I would probably freak out. If the iPhone os was on my home computer, I would probably freak out. On a phone? All I care is that there are apps available and that they are cheap.

At the end of the day, the only phone that even approaches the iphone in terms of awesome is the Droid, and that is because of the mechanical keyboard, and that android 2 is getting close to the iPhone OS. Having an open platform on your phone may make you feel good about yourself, but thats about all it will do.

I can't wait for when people start freaking out because someone is controlling the distribution channels for their toaster.

I'm sure the developers who actually get their apps into the store could care less. Trouble is, apps are rejected often for ridiculous reasons such as the fact that they supposedly duplicate functionality. Funny thing about these rejections is they're not consistent. Skype and iCall make it into the app sore, but Google Voice is rejected. Logical no, political definitely. That is why some of us care, because Apple isn't just being the gatekeeper but is using that power to lock out anything they think competes with their own software in any way, real or imagined. You know what would happen if Microsoft tried that tactic of forcing competing apps out?

Is there actually any evidence that Apple actually audits for security? I would argue that it's pretty much impossible form them. A proper security audit would probably take at least 10x the time it takes them now. I actually disagree with Thom that a central location for apps does not increase security. Heck that's what I use mostly software from the repositories on Linux. I trust the people running those repositories, and I believe a security breach will be discovered very quickly (the many eyes thing). However with the app store you are forced to only trust apple. There's 2 main problems with this, I possibly like to trust someone else (even if it's just myself). Secondly, I have no way to see if the trust into Apple is justified, and as I stated above it probably is not.

That doesn't mean I would support a similar level of application control in a consumer OS. I think such a move would stifle innovation and competition. The app store provider would not only be inclined to favor its own apps but also top selling apps that it gets a cut of.

However on phones I don't think it matters since most people just want to buy a few casual games through their phone provider. They don't want to go hunting through the web to find games they like. They'd rather have a quick menu that provides top selling games.

Apple doesn't police dashcode applications on the iPhone in any way shape or form. They're simply a bookmark away and will run offline. Not to say they are as fully functional as "native" apps, but you can do some pretty nifty things with them. It is a way to write applications for the platform that are not part of the App Store ecosystem, and is often overlooked.

Yesterday, I went to a shop to buy some ink for my Canon printer. They have many kind of cartridge, but it is obvious to me they contain the same ink. What is different is the form of the cartridge and the price. With such system Canon (and it is also true for HP, Epson ...) has the total control on the total amount of money I will spend for my printer during its entire use time. Of course I could buy some compatible stuffs, but if I have some issue with it and break my printer Canon will not forgive me.

Apple uses the same system with its iPhone and the iPhone software's market. I never thought the fact that Apple does lock its phone would have anything to do with safety, security or whatever you want. Who says that ? I mean, fanboys are not people one should care about. Of course that this system is a way to Apple to control the iPhone software's market !

They would argue they want to control the "user experience". For instance having only one browser in the iPhone is a way not to get the user lost. It might be true for 75% of the users, but what about the geeks ? The App store is a great market place which allows big visibility to small software editors, but it is no excuse not to allow the installation of custom softwares. Both have nothing to do. Especially when you see the mess the App store is becoming.

To conclude, the only reason Apple locks its phone is mostly a business one, but is also a way to provide casual users with a closed and not daunting experience. It has nothing to do with security.